Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The district court erred in concluding that because of arbitration and venue provisions in an employment contract between the parties, it lacked jurisdiction.Nearly three years into the litigation in this case, the Douglas County District Court indefinitely stayed a claim for dissolution of one business entity, a party in the case, and dismissed sua sponte all other claims, noting that the employment contract contained arbitration and venue provisions that were outside the district court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed the stay and dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that because no party sought to enforce the arbitration agreement, it was error for the district court to do so on its own accord. View "Boyd v. Cook" on Justia Law

Meyer, a disbarred lawyer, owns JHM, which installed and maintained laundry machines in apartment buildings; Dolphin, which sold commercial laundry equipment to JHM and others; and JH Meyer, which operated a laundry facility. In 2012-2013, Firestone financed JHM’s business with loans totaling about $250,000. Because JHM obtained its equipment from Dolphin, the loans actually financed Dolphin’s purchases from the manufacturer. Firestone retained a security interest in JHM’s assets. Dolphin, JH Meyer, and Meyer guaranteed JHM’s loan obligations. In 2013 Firestone sued JHM for default and sued Meyer, Dolphin, and JH Meyer under the guarantees. The defendants raised the affirmative defense and counterclaim of promissory estoppel, asserting that after Firestone issued JHM two loans, Firestone’s Vice President McAllister told Meyer that Firestone would set up a $500,000 line of credit for JHM and that, until the line of credit was established, Firestone would finance “any” equipment that JHM needed on “identical terms” to the first two loans. Firestone subsequently issued the third loan. After McAllister left Firestone, Firestone’s CEO approved the final loan. The defendants assert that Firestone’s refusal to issue further loans harmed them. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Firestone. Meyer’s allegations were implausible because no financial firm would commit orally to loaning substantial sums to a startup. Meyer conceded that he “made no payments” to Firestone. A reasonable jury could not conclude that Meyer has satisfied any of the elements of promissory estoppel. View "Firestone Financial Corp. v. Meyer" on Justia Law

Meyer, a disbarred lawyer, owns JHM, which installed and maintained laundry machines in apartment buildings; Dolphin, which sold commercial laundry equipment to JHM and others; and JH Meyer, which operated a laundry facility. In 2012-2013, Firestone financed JHM’s business with loans totaling about $250,000. Because JHM obtained its equipment from Dolphin, the loans actually financed Dolphin’s purchases from the manufacturer. Firestone retained a security interest in JHM’s assets. Dolphin, JH Meyer, and Meyer guaranteed JHM’s loan obligations. In 2013 Firestone sued JHM for default and sued Meyer, Dolphin, and JH Meyer under the guarantees. The defendants raised the affirmative defense and counterclaim of promissory estoppel, asserting that after Firestone issued JHM two loans, Firestone’s Vice President McAllister told Meyer that Firestone would set up a $500,000 line of credit for JHM and that, until the line of credit was established, Firestone would finance “any” equipment that JHM needed on “identical terms” to the first two loans. Firestone subsequently issued the third loan. After McAllister left Firestone, Firestone’s CEO approved the final loan. The defendants assert that Firestone’s refusal to issue further loans harmed them. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Firestone. Meyer’s allegations were implausible because no financial firm would commit orally to loaning substantial sums to a startup. Meyer conceded that he “made no payments” to Firestone. A reasonable jury could not conclude that Meyer has satisfied any of the elements of promissory estoppel. View "Firestone Financial Corp. v. Meyer" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Eco-Energy in a breach of contract action filed by the Bank. The court held that the district court did not err by granting partial summary judgment for Eco-Energy because Eco-Energy did not breach a sublease where that sublease did not require Eco-Energy to give its partner in the sublease, Nedak, notice and opportunity to cure a default. Furthermore, Eco-Energy did not breach the Assignment where the district court found no causation. View "First Dakota National Bank v. Eco Energy, LLC" on Justia Law

Winn-Dixie filed suit against Big Lots, Dollar General, and Dollar Tree, to enforce a grocery exclusive provision of its leases. At issue on appeal was the district court's ruling on remand. The district court found that none of the Alabama stores was violating the grocery exclusive provisions. In regard to the Florida stores, the district court ruled that the definitions of "groceries" and "sales area" in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. 99 Cent Stuff-Trail Plaza, LLC, 811 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), applied. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's judgment as to the Dollar General and Big Lots stores in Florida and remanded with instructions for the district court to apply to those stores, which had leases dated before February 20, 2002, the same definitions of "groceries" and "sales area" that it applied to the Florida stores with leases dated after February 20, 2002. The court affirmed as to the Alabama stores. View "Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC" on Justia Law

Winn-Dixie filed suit against Big Lots, Dollar General, and Dollar Tree, to enforce a grocery exclusive provision of its leases. At issue on appeal was the district court's ruling on remand. The district court found that none of the Alabama stores was violating the grocery exclusive provisions. In regard to the Florida stores, the district court ruled that the definitions of "groceries" and "sales area" in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. 99 Cent Stuff-Trail Plaza, LLC, 811 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), applied. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's judgment as to the Dollar General and Big Lots stores in Florida and remanded with instructions for the district court to apply to those stores, which had leases dated before February 20, 2002, the same definitions of "groceries" and "sales area" that it applied to the Florida stores with leases dated after February 20, 2002. The court affirmed as to the Alabama stores. View "Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CarMax, alleging breaches of express and implied warranties, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL), and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). When plaintiff purchased her car at a CarMax dealership, she was not informed that there was an outstanding safety recall relating to the stop lamp switch in the vehicle. In regard to the alleged breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the Court of Appeal concluded that CarMax's express limitations on the remedies available applied to such a breach. The court explained that plaintiff obtained the remedy authorized under the contract and its limitations for a breach of warranty. However, plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish CarMax engaged in unfair or deceptive practices in violation of the CLRA, and plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish CarMax had a duty to disclose the safety recall. Finally, plaintiff stated a cause of action under the UCL where the violation of the CLRA served as the predicate violation of law necessary to establish the unlawful practice variety of unfair competition that was actionable under the UCL. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's judgment. View "Gutierrez v. CarMax Auto Superstores California" on Justia Law

After RAC Acceptance East, LLC swore out a warrant for Mira Brown’s arrest for theft by conversion of furniture that she had rented from RAC, Brown filed a lawsuit against RAC alleging malicious prosecution and other torts. The trial court entered an order granting RAC’s motion to compel Brown to arbitrate her claims pursuant to the arbitration agreement incorporated into the parties’ rental agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed that order, concluding that whether RAC had waived its right to demand arbitration by its conduct in initiating the related criminal proceeding against Brown was a matter for the court to decide and that the trial court had correctly ruled that RAC did not waive arbitration. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment on the ground that the delegation provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly gave the arbitrator, not the courts, the authority to determine that RAC did not waive by prior litigation conduct its right to seek arbitration, and the arbitrator’s decision on the waiver question could not be properly challenged as legally erroneous. View "Brown v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC" on Justia Law

Apple Leisure specializes in packaged travel sales and resort management. In 2011 Scott and Natasha Mueller purchased an Apple all-inclusive honeymoon trip to Secrets Resort in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, through a Fond du Lac, Wisconsin travel agent. The contract attached to their travel vouchers explains in boldface type that “[t]he exclusive forum for the litigation of any claim or dispute arising out of … [this] trip shall be the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania.” While on her honeymoon, Natasha became ill after Secrets Resort served her contaminated fish. She was diagnosed with Ciguatera poisoning, a foodborne illness caused by eating certain reef fish infected with Ciguatera neurotoxins. The Muellers sued in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district judge applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens and dismissed the case based on the forum-selection clause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The judge’s decision was procedurally and substantively sound. A forum-selection clause channeling litigation to a nonfederal forum is enforced through the doctrine of forum non conveniens; only an exceptional public-interest justification can displace a contractual choice of forum. The Muellers have not identified any public interest to justify overriding the forum-selection clause in their travel contract. View "Mueller v. Apple Leisure Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, entered after a jury trial, in favor of Otoe County School District 66-0111 in this dispute over amounts owed under a contract between the School District and Facilities Cost Management Group (FCMG).In the first appeal in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury had been erroneously instructed and remanded the cause for a new trial. On retrial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the School District. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) admitting certain evidence; (2) instructing the jury; and (3) ruling on FCMG’s posttrial motions. View "Facilities Cost Management Group v. Otoe County School District 66-0111" on Justia Law